"Why MWBG is a good magazine" Topic

I am not normally prone to froth, but having read 363 now I would say that Henry and Atlantis are getting it more right than wrong.

This month there three great WARGAME articles:

Pg 31 – Whispering Death – a complete convoy bombing game
Pg 44 – Take that you varlet – a medieval skirmish
Pg 49 – Muster Mayhem – a game of re-enactors
All three of these gave anyone who fancied it a chance to go and give it a try. Not just masses of "Osprey history" and pretty pictures.

There was also a Wild West scenario (pg 25), with "history", forces, suggested rules, map, victory conditions etc.

A WW1 in depth article that gave a great flavour to a set of rules/period that I am unfamiliar with.

And along with all that, there were the other artciles – how to build a wooden fort, reviews, talking heads etc. Supported by a nice amount of relevant eye candy.

If it can continue to include that much relevant WARGAMING stuff, then I am a happy man.

I must admit I have been impressed lately with the magazine

I subscribe to it on my Kindle, I am very impressed with the improvement from before

I also currently subscribe to WI by mail but I am considering not renewing this when in runs outin 2 months this and just continue with MWBG

Al

I bought both WI and MW this month – of the two I thought MW was better but really neither of them are worth buying. Large chunks of MW at least is news and reviews all of which is old hat to anyone who visits TMP with any regularity. I can't see much in either magazine that you won't get 10x more of, and in more depth and more professionally written that you can't get from looking at half a dozen good blogs.

MW has the edge because it had actual games in it – the medieval skirmish looks fun – and it's much slicker looking in its new form, but I think the web, and blogs in particular, have made print wargames mags redundant.

I think the web, and blogs in particular, have made print wargames mags redundant

I hope not – and I doubt if many blogs get the same number of "unique hits" as any of the glossy magazines do.

Even TMP "only" gets ~9,000-10,000 unique visitors per day, and most of those visitors are probvably the same every day.

I would agree that there did seem to be more review / comment columns this month, but then we've got a dedicated F/SF review column again (Practical Wargamer's Fantasy Facts is back !). Whether ~25% of the magazine should be reviews/comment columns isn't for me to say.

I would agree that there did seem to be more review / comment columns this month, but then we've got a dedicated F/SF review column again (Practical Wargamer's Fantasy Facts is back !). Whether ~25% of the magazine should be reviews/comment columns isn't for me to say.

Henry explains the rationale behind this in the latest "View from the Verandah".

Is that a podcast ?

Whispering Death – a complete convoy bombing game

I think that's the article of the month.

I'm not won over by the online electronic media argument. I like hard copy magazines instead of headache inducing stuff on e-readers which run the risk of getting stolen when I take them out and about…nobody ever steals a copy of MW in hard copy form! The other advantages of the magazine format is that it features different people's perspectives but blogs are all about one person's view so there's less balance in the writing.

I think the new format MW is good, but it does feel more like Battlegames with MW tucked away inside somewhere. The wargaming articles are usually good, the opinion pieces are a mixed bag. The presentation is slick, but the way the articles are written feel like a return to 80s and early 90s wargaming magazines (ie, a lot of personal opinions put in, waxing lyrical about rules and figures of yore and quirky writing styles). I give the new look MW about an 8/10.

The three main UK magazines all have their quirks, advantages and disadvantages. WI is impressive but game-y in that the history takes a back seat to the simulation. WSS has the best format, but if you don't like that issue's theme then it's easy to bypass plus they have in the past been blatantly pro-28mm (but are now embracing other scales a lot more). MW is a real pot-pourri of themes, ideas and subjects but the writing is a lot more personal and some contributors wear their gaming prejudices more on their sleeves giving articles a marmite quality at times. However, I enjoy all three in their own ways.

Why do the posters assume that everybody knows what MWBG means?

Is that a podcast ?

link

the way the articles are written feel like a return to 80s and early 90s wargaming magazines (ie, a lot of personal opinions put in, waxing lyrical about rules and figures of yore and quirky writing styles).

I second that – it is early days though for the new look MW so I'm minded to cut them a bit of slack.

A related question could be "what can print magazines offer their readers that you can't get elsewhere?" Well presented painting/terrain tutorials, perhaps? Campaigns? Game rules?

A related question could be "what can print magazines offer their readers that you can't get elsewhere?" Well presented painting/terrain tutorials, perhaps? Campaigns? Game rules?

Something that will still be laying around that I can still read in 5 years…

I have piles of old couriers and Empires Eagles and Lions to look back to,bookmarked it, is it still there?

Bobg – because that it is how it is being referred to these days. Probably not too hard to get to grips with.

And I guess I was staking my colours to the mask by saying it was worth it – I am not aware of blogs (at least the ones I read) givbing me three complete mini-games. And that is why I felt it was the market leading mag this month. WI (I hope we all know what that stands for) is generally, IMHO, just Osprey reprints, and so I found this month, even though it had Napoleonics in it (my favourite) to be a bit bland.

And MWBG is improving the quality of its photos (the wargames porn as it were) and so WI is losing one of its USPs.

Val – I reckon that is what mags good, and why this month's MWBG is good – because in years to come I will see those articles and maybe try a game out of them. Whereas most blogs I will struggle to find the article I enjoyed in 6 months time, let alone 5 years.

And Alex – for my money, I reckon what henry did this month is precisely what a magazine can and should be doing – putting stuff in it that the blogs don't do. I see lots of painting and terrain building on line, but these mini-games less so.

I agree Marc, the mini-games were what made MW a better buy for me that WI – when I said "neither of them are worth buying" it was a bit too harsh; what I should have said was I can't see much reason to buy either of them regularly. I'll be happy for MW to prove me wrong!

I picked up the "new" first edition – it was ok not "fantastic" but I felt it could be a whole lot better.

However, I think it's a brave move given the hobby magazine market is trying to adjust, adapt and evolve the way it delivers against a backdrop of the "websphere" and it's huge amount of bloggers and public's use of new media devices particularly hand helds such tablets, smart phones, etc.

I believe it is needed and is most welcomed alongside the other great wargames magazine WSS. Whitedwarf, and to a lesser extent WI, are so wrapped up in supporting their own products one could be forgiven in thinking there was nothing else on the market. Of course there are other magazines out there too, which I have not mentioned.

I would like to see more "Wargame" articles – refighting not just the "big battles" but smaller battles and engagements, campaigns, land, sea and air please! I want to understand why (without being overly opinionated) the author chose the scale or battle or campaign etc without going off piste! The articles in Battle were great – the table top teasers were probably one of the best series of articles I have read.

Less reviews and improve them. If you are to do reviews then please do it full justice – the reviews in their current state could do with a rethink and revamp. See Model Rail or again Scale Modelling Aircraft for great review articles. If I was a manufacturer providing a product for review I would want similar service from what is delivered by the Railway and Aircraft magazines.

Which leads me on to – better articles on modelling hints and tips – the photography and the articles themselves are poor IMHO (if you want to see great small page but stuffed full of ideas, hints and tips for modelling in a hobby see Model Rail or one of the great Scale Modelling Aircraft magazines!).

The potential is there if the will is to enable the creativity and flare to see and then deliver it!

Good start and look forward to the mag growing in stature. Good luck Henry and co. at MWBG!

(Something weird happened to my first attempt…)

Just imagine what it's like.

Every month, you pop into your local pub, and find a bunch of blokes talking about your product, and telling you how they think you should do it better. You should walk a mile in my shoes.

So, once again (apologies to those who have heard something similar before), let me make this perfectly clear.

MWBG is, essentially, a one-man-band. Me. Every article sent in is thanks to the dedication and enthusiasm of amateur or, at the very best, semi-professional contributors – I hardly think the £20.00 GBP a page budget Atlantic give me will lend anyone the 'professional' title. WSS isn't much bigger, but does have Guy, with the backing of Jasper and Christy and the Karawanseray team; WI, of course, has the backing of Battlefront and teams here in the UK and US as well as NZ. I also can't begin to describe the step-change in pressure when changing from bi-monthly to monthly, as I now know. I'm going to have to cut right back on my visits here, for starters.

Therefore, the mix of articles in each issue of the magazine is a reflection of what has arrived in my inbox and believe me, it's pretty unpredictable. I don't have the funds to go out and commission pieces – and even if I did, I'd still be relying on individual wargamers and their friends managing to find the time to put something together when it's not their full-time job, they have families to look after and so on. I have accepted an offer from Brendan Morrissey to act as 'Historical Features Editor' so that we can put an end to the 'ten pages of history with a bit about wargaming tagged on the end' syndrome, but it's a long ahaul, and again relies on the collaboration of a string of unpaid enthusiasts.

The photos in the magazine reflect what 'real' wargamers get up to. There are no studio photoshoots, there's just the ability of the individual who submits the piece, or their helpful chums with a decent camera. This is why I wrote a piee of my own about digital photography in issue 361, to give some tips for just this situation. Occasionally I may supplement a piece if I happen to have taken appropriate photos at a show, but that's pot luck.

The Reviews will stay just as they are. Our job is to cover as wide a breadth of new products and services as we can each issue. Very occasionally, there may indeed be more in-depth reviews, but if you saw the pile of stuff that arrives here, the task is to give as many of them an airing as possible or, if I were a trader, I'd feel naturally miffed if stuff I sent in for review was ignored. Oh, and the reviewers are unpaid: the item sent for review counts as 'payment', which is of course a bit galling if they don't like it!

So MWBG will continue to be a pot-pourri of the best I have to hand when each issue falls due and, as a result, each issue will be different from the last. I have a small number of regular columnists who themselves have very catholic tastes, around whose pieces I build the best magazine I can with the resources at my disposal.

Magazines are like buses – there will be another one along in a minute – and I can't possibly aim to please all the people, all the time. I am, by nature, a perfectionist, so I have to deal with inner demons every month because I know perfection is just not possible in the time I have. But I reckon that after producing 37 magazines single handed, I've now got a pretty good idea of what works, most of the time, and that's why Atlantic put me in charge.

So, thanks, Marc, for your opening post, and I would love to think that all of you would find every issue perfect, but it ain't gonna happen, is it? C'est la vie.

Of course, those of you who would like to see more of x, y or z in the magazine – I loook forward to your contributions, or those from anyone you can help persuade to write them.

Incidentally, in the weird way of the internet, whilst I often find myself being moaned at here, I get a healthy email postbag – and even old-fashioned letters – from people who love the magazine. And the bottom line is always sales, which have shot up. There's something in the water here at TMP…

Henry
Miniature Wargames with Battlegames (MWBG)

Henry

As stated above I am impressed with the new Magazine format and keep up the good work,you will continue to get my subscription

Al

Every month, you pop into your local pub, and find a bunch of blokes talking about your product, and telling you how they think you should do it better. You should walk a mile in my shoes.

Or the publican's.

"What do you think of the Bitter ? Smells a bit off to me"

"Nah, mine's all right – have you got a cold ?"

"No, but I was the first one after he changed the barrel"

"Might be a little bit of cleaner in it"

"This new lager he's got in is awful, wish he'd go back to the old one"

"Yeah, but the kids like that one don't they ?"

"These new crisps are nice – cheese and bricole flavour."

"I only like ready salted".

And so it goes….

Well there I was, all set for a leisurely evening now work has quietened down and posting my thoughts on the older thread, but there's already this one.

So, first up, the magazine. For me, this is the best issue to date. The medieval skirmish rules will probably get a run out this winter at the club and whilst the convoy game may be less likely to be played due to other priorities, it's the sort of thing you come back to in the future. Nice to see some show pics from Partizan, a shame they couldn't be larger as there were some good games. Mike Siggns seemed more relevant this month and I liked the Messines article.

Fantasy Facts was an extended single review but I'm sure that will change. Command Challenge and Muster Mayhem not my cup of tea, but I don't expect everything to float my boat. As others have said, there are a lot of reviews and shorter ones, linked to a proper showcase on a re-vamped website, might be an alternative, particularly as releases on sites like this seem to drop off the page quickly. Not sure why the re-hash of Hammer's Slammers needed commisioning – it's had quite a bit of coverage in the past and some sort of scenario would have been preferred.

I did go through it more thoroughly to get a full impression and was surprised to see one of my posts on here partially quoted on the Combat Stress 'news' page. Having read your editorial in which you talk of 'looking in the eye and a firm handshake' and misjudging tone on the internet you then went on to infer that those suggesting that the Combat Stress appeal is perhaps overdone (and counter-productive in terms of avoiding compassion fatigue), begrudged appeals to charity and only supporters could 'hold their head high.' An interesting turn of phrase. Charitable giving is a personal decision and I'd rather not be labelled as uncaring because I query the effectiveness of your approach. Nevertheless, your job is editor of the magazine and perhaps the drum-banging could be toned down.

I actually think trying to target a specific wargaming demographic rather than a more inclusive approach might well pay off for you, for some time at least, although I would expect sales of the magazine to rise anyway, following the disappearance of one. The bombastic persona certainly gives the magazine a distinct character and these days that might well be an asset, although it feels too old-school for me.

The merger came at a time when I was debating my purchase of magazines in general so gave me time to reflect. I do think they can present an alternative to online activities and the other two main magazines seem to be trying to bridge the gap. I want to see magazines on newstands as buying MW Issue 7 at Lancaster bus station and reading it cover to cover repeatedly sustained my interest in wargaming until I turned 12 and was allowed to join the local club. I want the magazine to do well but after 30 years buying it I think it's time to call it a day and stick with WS&S, with the occasional WI when it catches my eye. My SOA and SOTCW subscriptions will also keep me busy.

I said at the time of the merger that I was not a big fan of BG, but from the initial tone (which suggested that MW would be thrown under the bus and seemed to unnecessarily disparage previous work) and content (which hasn't gripped me consistently enough), I just don't feel it's the magazine for me anymore. To those who enjoy it, I'm glad you have a magazine that suits, it would be a dull world if we all wanted the same things.

Well, as the editor felt the need to excise what weren't particularly strong comments I suppose I should clarify in as anaemic a manner as possible. I would have given the magazine a little longer, but for your tone, manner and actions Henry. I'm not sure why editor of a wargames magazine is supposed to be a job devoid of any negative criticism, particularly when you love to share positive feedback, but welcome to the real world. Be thankful people are commenting on what you've actually done (at a critical time for the magazine), rather than relying on hearsay and mis-truths, which happens in so many other jobs.

Anyway, as a former subscriber I'm grateful for the fact that I haven't had to fork out this month to make my decision.

as a former subscriber

And the bottom line is always sales, which have shot up.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say …

Well done, Henry, keep up the good work!

Your point being Major? I only subscribed several years ago, other than that I've always picked it up in the shop. I was referring to the free copy that was sent to former subscribers, saving me some outlay. My point about sales was that when two magazines merge you would expect an increase, at least initially, as you have two markets. From reading here it seems like many BG readers weren't fans of MW before but you would expect them to move over given the changes.

@pmh1882

The reason you were edited by Bill was because you were – and still are – directing _personal_ criticisms at me, rather than confining yourself to criticising my product. Hiding behind your veil of anonymity, I wonder why you feel quite so aggrieved as to feel it necessary to resort to such posturing. Have we ever met, or even spoken, for you to feel qualified to make such comments on my personality? Just what are these "actions" that are so objectionable? Have you, in fact, the faintest idea of who I am as a person, other than being someone who puts a magazine together and raises money for a charity? "Welcome to the real world", you say, without having the faintest idea of what my "real world" is. But I can tell you that now being in my fifties, having been in business for more than 20 of those years and experiencing some pretty grim things in my time, I've got a pretty firm grasp on it, thank you.

I fully accept that my magazine isn't for everyone – and to say that I don't accept negative comments as going with the territory is laughable. I've been on this and other forums many times over the years and have heard many opinions expressed about the magazines I have produced, some good, some bad. I explain why decisions have been made in terms of design and content and style, whilst accepting that people might prefer any one of the other magazines available or even those who prefer to get their wargaming fare exclusively online – that's a modern fact of life, and I accept that the audience is changing.

But I am more ready to act upon criticism from those I work with or have contact with on a regular basis, and whose opinion I trust as being free from any agenda; those who themselves regularly put their product or service in the public arena and who understand what it's like; my clients, Atlantic Publishing, who directed me to make the changes I have made, and who are also fully aware that the changes will be uncomfortable for some; and those who have the courtesy to address their concerns to me politely, using their real names, whilst understanding that the decisions about the magazine were not made lightly, nor overnight, and that we are going to give the 'new' MWBG in its current format a fair crack of the whip over a considerable period before making any further, radical changes.

But one thing I know for certain: it will never go back to being what it was. Uncomfortable though the decision was for some of those involved, the changes were demanded by Atlantic and made as a result of market forces. The old lady needed a kick up the behind to ensure its survival.

There's an old saying: if you like what I do, tell others; if you don't like what I do, tell _me_. What a shame the internet has put an end to such courtesies, but, as you say, that's the "real world" of today.

Henry

I don't recall ever saying the magazine should go back to what it was Henry, nor have I only posted negative comments about new content. I rather hoped a third way would be good, instead of going backwards. Do you ever read what others, or indeed yourself, actually write? Your memory is as selective as your editing. Anyway, thank you for confirming I've made the right decision.

For what my tuppence is worth Henry, I think the magazine has come on in leaps and bounds and improved in the three editions so far under your editorship. I may have been rather harsh towards the first copy, but that was more thanks to comments on FOW by one columnist rather than your editorship, and I think you do need time to bed into the role of combining two magazines and two readerships, after all it's not been attempted many times before and you don't want BG to go the way of Battle for Wargamers.
I know you have mentioned that you rely upon contributions entirely, but until reading above I didn't realize, and I suspect many others here didn't either, that your budget per page is £20.00 GBP only. Obviously there are many of us who have no idea what it takes o get publications like this to the shelf, and I note from the posts above and your editorial this month that you are trying to enlighten us as to the effort involved. I wish I had known earlier.
So I take my hat off to you sir, well done on a good job so far, don't let the nitpickers and grumblers detract you, the magazine is evolving and improving and although you can't please all of the people all of the time, I'm sure you will please most of them most of the time.

Well Henry, you knew it would not be an easy ride. But I trust you know who I am under my "nom de plume", and I am more than happy to badger you at shows if I feel the need – and the ol' heart stands up to the strain .

But as I said in my original post – a great WARGAMES mag this month, so here's to it always trying to be that. Not an empty glossy photo mag, not a history mag, but a truly great WARGAMES mag. PMH – not sure what you are saying really, but sad to me if you could not find anything to enjoy in this month's mag – I personally thought it had a lot more substance than WS&S – and I like that mag, so that is not a dig, just an observation based on the latest mags.

But it is a wide world, so I am sure we will all find something to amuse us in one of the mags, or the web as suits.

Marc, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I didn't take anything from the latest issue. To quote my first paragraph:

'So, first up, the magazine. For me, this is the best issue to date. The medieval skirmish rules will probably get a run out this winter at the club and whilst the convoy game may be less likely to be played due to other priorities, it's the sort of thing you come back to in the future. Nice to see some show pics from Partizan, a shame they couldn't be larger as there were some good games. Mike Siggins seemed more relevant this month and I liked the Messines article.'

I do believe in starting with the things you like. My 'issues' though, simply(ish) put, are as follows:

- The merger, whilst not perhaps surprising in the long run, gave Atlantic the chance to produce a new magazine,
rather than aping a failed one (Battlegames). Competition for the magazine is less likely to be WI or WS&S, but the internet. It's certainly not MW of 5 or 10 years ago and I'd rather not see digs at previous or other magazines to define what MWBG is not. Show me what it actually is rather than spouting about 'fiercely independent.' I don't care about who owns the mag, as long as it's good.

- Wargaming is a niche hobby and Battlegames readers seemingly a small niche within that. I think it's a little sad that the longest running magazine seems to be going down the route of going for a niche audience rather than a broad church. It might actually be more financially viable but opens things up for WS&S and WI.

- Certain Battlegames writers seem to write to fill a space and I feel this needs addressing when they transfer over. As examples, the navel-gazing articles in the last issue (rules-writers should share design decisions and should we prioritise and up the terrain game?) could each have been covered in a column of a couple of pages max.

- I like the self-contained games, but am aware that time is more limited these days. Dan Mersey writes some good stuff, but what seems to be lacking is more scenarios suitable for the 'in vogue' games which people play and have rules for already. There's always something new coming along, but give us more for games such as Bolt Action, FOW, Black Powder, etc. I don't play all of these but they would make the magazine feel more relevant. I used Henry's Imaginations article over 20 years ago as inspiration to put together my own 18th century rules and fight battles with lego 2x4 blocks (coloured strips on top for elite infanty, on the bottom for cavalry), but it's not the 1980s anymore.

- The lack of contributors? It already feels that Henry has his set list, so why should people feel encouraged to join the club? I actually think targeting the best demo/participation games at the shows Henry's going to would be a good way of getting examples of games that work, have simple rules and engage people. Most of the work is already done too, it just requires writing up.

- The Combat Stress point? I don't think giving 2 pages per issue of free advertising to Combat Stress is a sound move, particularly when Henry pleads poverty on commissioning articles. If he wrote less in Briefing he could quite easily update on auctions there, whilst making more of specific events at certain times during the year. I do think encouraging people to make a special effort every six months might be more effective than a slow drip approach.

- I shall be careful what I say here, as I don't want Henry complaining to Bill again, but I had hoped for a less rigid and more welcoming approach from Henry. I realise it's his 'schtick' but from the start there seemed to be lots of effort to reassure BG readers, whilst as a MW reader it seems, 'changes are happening, if you like them all, say so. If you don't, tough, shut up and buy another magazine.' Henry has made it quite clear that unless you know him well personally he won't pay any attention (although his actions sometimes suggest otherwise), so I really don't see the point in emailing and would rather raise points on a forum. For discussion or not, as the case may be.

- Oh, the internet. Both of the other magazines seem to have much better websites than MWBG and make better use of them, actually making links within the magazine. Given how many people are online now and how many blogs there actually are, create more of a network. It just seems tired and dated. I realise I'm typing this on TMP…

I'm not actually being sarcastic though when I say that Henry's managed to confirm my decision. I had decided to give the new magazine 6-12 months whilst I evaluated the others (WS&S is my favourite, but it's not perfect by any means and I'd hoped MWBG would be that magazine. This way at least, with the free edition, I've saved about £50.00 GBP.

Paul

I think you've made your point…

p.s. I should add, I've never met Henry, spoke to Iain Dickie once at a show and Andrew Hubback twice, whilst subscribing and buying back issue cds.

I don't quite get the whole argument that we should 'put ourselves in Henry's shoes' before commenting. I've never been a professional footballer but will pass comment when I'm paying their wages. The same goes for being editor of a magazine I'm buying. Or passing judgement on a film I've paid to see. Maybe as I'm getting a bit older I'm less willing to just accept things, but like I say, the merger came at a time when I was debating my purchase of any magazines. If I was cutting down to one, I'd hoped it would be MW.

Count Belisarius, I have indeed. It just seemed that what I wrote had been missed or misinterpreted. As I won't be buying again you won't have to read any more reviews.

Oddly enough, Paul, some of the very issues you have with the magazine are the same things that caused me to become a subscriber. I find the other periodicals you've mentioned to be less pleasing in various ways, but I'm not vain enough to believe that these constitute editorial failures . . . merely that they are designed to appeal to a "niche within a niche" to which I do not belong.

Your points are made, as the Count says, but I do not find them compelling.

I don't think it's particularly odd that different people like different things Jeffrey, but I don't think it's vain to state preferences or opposing viewpoints. Anyway, I'm glad you like the magazine now.

I think the structure of the new Miniature Wargames (with Battlegames) is fine and the historical articles have benefitted from having wargaming applications more to the fore than just tacked onto the end.

I second what Volleyfire said; the first thing I read in the relaunched magazine was Neil Shuck's column which ended in his attack on Flames of War which got my back up. I'm glad I stuck through that issue because the stuff in the middle of that one was quality.

We'll have to see over the next few months how the columnists do with regards to covering specific kinds of games. Personally, I like scenarios which give OOBs and set ups that can be used for a variety of rules, not something that is hard to get hold of or is out of print.

Like I said previously, I'm giving the new magazine 8/10 and I hope that's good enough for Henry.

Sorry Paul – I appreciate you extra comments and clarity. It is not my mag and I have no axe to grind, but maybe there will be things in it for you in the future.

Me, I like WS&S but will pass on WI, so I guess we all pick and choose.

As to columnists, I personally find some of the WS&S columnists a tad repetitive for my tastes (yes, I get it, "you" worked for GW, now move on. And yes, IABSM is the most innovative game system in the world, I get it, now move on please), but I can cope with that and pick and choose what I enjoy each mag. But I guess I am just not that alert to the 80's mindset that is suggested for MWBG – but then, I am heavily back into my Imagi-Nation armies (and my Naps using Black Powder and my WW2 using Bolt Action – probably modern versions of 80's rules), so maybe the mag just suits me a bit better.

And the bottom line is always sales, which have shot up.

Is that combined MW/BG sales before against MWBG after the change or just MW before v MWBG after?

No problem Marc and thanks for your comments. I think they're valid criticisms of WS&S – as far as I'm concerned there are no sacred cows and I do flick past columnists from time to time. As for IABSM, I've yet to use my copy in anger and I'm waiting for Chain of Command. Bolt Action has been fun in a few games but doesn't quite hit the spot. I did enjoy my first game of BP in 15mm recently though and also tried Battlegroup Normandy.

To be honest a lot of the WS&S ACW issue didn't have too much in it for me and that is an problem with themes. Having said that, it sometimes encourages me to find out more about a new period or conflict, a bit like the SOTCW Journal. I don't actually mind a bit of history in the magazine in moderation, particularly when it's something less well-known or needs putting in context. Suggested links to go with an article on the website wouldn't be bad either. I do pick and choose WIs but my brother loves it since he got back from NZ.

I guess in this day and age it becomes a question of targeting a specific audience rather than trying to offer breadth and for me personally that's just a shame after all the years I've been buying it. I'll live I'm sure.

Could someone explain what was 'wrong' with wargaming in the 1980's, and why 'a 1980's mindset' would be a criticism of a magazine?

I remember it as being a very stimulating time: the foundation of Wargame Developments; the early megagames; the publication of Paddy Griffith's Napoleonic Wargaming For Fun…

Who is saying that there was anything wrong with wargaming in the 80s Arthur? I've attended several megagames myself. I'm merely pointing out that mixing in scenarios for current games along with the more home-brewed efforts would have been appreciated and felt like a more modern magazine. There was lots going on in the 80s, but there's a lot going on now too.

Based on a few old copies of MW, Practical Wargamer and Wargames World I still have, I've noticed a style in the writing.

It's what you might call "folksy": Lots of personal opinions by the writer instead of matter-of-fact or dry re-telling. With this came the "do it my way" style of articles where the writers' techniques were obviously the best. Dry wit was also in evidence (and you either liked their wit or it grated). Lots of lamenting about defunct ranges of figures (Jacklex being the one most often mentioned). Nothing necessarily wrong with any of this.

I like Messers Priestley and Clarke's columns in WSS but they can be parodied. Priestly: "But what dice to use? D6? D10? Percentile Dice? What probable outcomes does that leave us with? How many dice? How does that affect the bell curve? Do we need dice? Have we considered the D12 average die? How many D12 average dice?" Clarke: "Of course the problems with IGOUGO can only be solved by randomising the turn order…perhaps by the use of a card deck. Only this way can a realistic loss of control be simulated on the table."

As the Chinese already said:
De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum.

I guess different people prefer different things in a magazine.
Personally, I look for inspiration that makes me think about my wargaming practices. I consider wargaming a hobby that is more about building your own game (incl. terrain, figures, rules), rather than about playing someone else's game. I guess that is reflected in my preference for certain articles.

Scenarios written for a specific ruleset: No, thanks.
Scenarios that explain the tactical challenge and then encourage you to translate to your own rules (cfr. Table Top Teasers): Yes

Article that describes a piece of history: No.
Article that explains how to transform a piece of history to the tabletop: Yes.

Addenda for a specific (commercial) ruleset: No.
Article that describes the very personal, idosyncratic approach to wargaming by a bloke who has developed his own rules: Yes.

Overall, I think wargaming magazines should push the hobby forwards, and should be the avant-garde of the hobby – not the followers of what the commercial publishers want to sell.
In other words, I rather prefer a good wargaming magazine to be more like a science journal rather than a trade journal.

But I also understand different people like different things, and there is a middle ground where everyone is mostly happy most of the time.

Uber – spot on.

Paul – no probs. Of course, typical isn't it – I quite liked the WS&S ACW stuff as I am into that at the moment (Fire & Fury traditional).

Phil – good points. +1

Uber – spot on.

Paul – no probs. Of course, typical isn't it – I quite liked the WS&S ACW stuff as I am into that at the moment (Fire & Fury traditional).

Phil – good points. +1

I have to concur with you on this, although as a Fire and Fury user I am increasingly being drawn towards using BP for ACW instead. Currently in middle of F&F game with friends and I think it may be re run with BP so we can compare how it runs and feels.
Also taken out a year sub on WS&S (as I still consider this one ahead of the pack) the other night, something I haven't done since I had one with WI pre BF ownership.Now I am currently musing over which other mag to subscribe to, MWBG or WI. Henry's mag is just nosing slightly ahead, although it would be out in front if he would drop the Hammers Slammers stuff which has crept back in. If WI would restrict about half the BF content to the website instead and concentrate on more variety in the mag I'd go for that one instead. If you have a website which is already posting articles in addendum to the mag content why not use it even more? I know WI is nearly a trade mag for BF with other article put in to try and keep people happy, but some issues are too loaded, even for me.

pmh1882 said:

The lack of contributors? It already feels that Henry has his set list, so why should people feel encouraged to join the club?

I don't know how to respond to this silly statement without landing in the Dawg House.

As a former editor of a wargaming publication (i.e. The Seven Years War Association Journal) for seven years, I can tell you that any magazine editor is greatful for almost any article that is submitted to him for publication. You need a never ending stream of content to fill up all of those pages every month. I would have gladly accepted an article from my worst enemy if it was written coherantly. Without content, the editor has to step in and fill the pages with his own writing.

There is no "exclusive list" of writers that Henry has on retainer at MWBG. If you want to write an article, then go ahead and do so. Please. If you want to "join the club" then the only membership requirement is that you write an article, any article.

Writing an article for any publication is no easy thing to do. Perhaps that is why there seems to be a "short list" of frequent contributors that have migrated over to MW from BG. If it were an easy thing to do, then perhaps the list of regular contributors would be longer.

You seem to be an opinionated bloke, so why not sit down at your keyboard and get to work on an article for one of the wargame magazines. Do it now.

Actually Fritz, I started at the weekend, following a trip to Eastern Europe last summer. SOTCW in this case.

Ubercommando – Folksy is a good way to describe it. I smiled at the second paragraph.

Marc – I haven't done much F&F. I've played Age of Eagles and just couldn't take to it. Still trying out other Napoleonics but sold my 10mm ACW a while back.

Phil – good points, although for me I prefer a middle ground, reflecting what's out there as well as the avant-garde.

Volleyfire, I also took out a WS&S subscription. I think getting out of the monthly cycle of buying mags for the sake of it will be good for me. WI is a bit too variable to subscribe, although I may pick up on occasion.

There are issues of WI that contain little or no BF product articles except for the new release page at the start.

However, when they're not featuring their own products, they're highlighting Warlord, or the Perrys, or Gripping Beast or whoever is hot. You might think being a trade magazine for the more prominent manufacturers is a bad thing, but it has its advantages: BF and WI are geared towards gamers to whom wargaming is either a new thing or who are making the sideways step from board, RPG or online wargaming into tabletop gaming. It does the impressive visuals, the articles get you right into the gaming action without loading up the historical background, it's light on opinion (everything is BRILLIANT like in the Fast Show) and it's dripping with bling and adverts for pretty, pretty things. It's not a crusty veteran magazine but it serves a section of the hobby. Thank goodness it isn't White Dwarf.

Ubercommando – parody all you like, but in fifteen columns I have thus far submitted to WSS (14 published to date) I have mentioned the word card three times, twice when talking about card driven game systems, once as part of the word Cardiff. Oh, and Mark the plastics fan, IABSM has been mentioned four times in total, usually in passing, such as the article on going to Historicon where I mention we played that game.

I try my best to write as Richard Clarke the wargamer rather than as TooFatLardies the corporate mouthpiece, and try to cover some of the more contentious and hopefully interesting issues in the hobby.

Five articles to date have looked at specific areas relating to game design (it's what I do for a living, so not surprisingly it is an area that interests me) covering command and control, intelligence, time and ground scale and battlefield friction. However, outside rule design I have looked at such pithy issues as Gods Own Scale, the Golden Age of Wargaming, Where are all the Youngsters, the joys of local shows, lead mountains, magazine collections and developments in how wargames are "consumed".

I can't do the same check to see just what Rick has been talking about, but my own impression as a punter is that he covers and eclectic and catholic mix of subjects, and that is surely what we want from a columnist?

Over the past twenty years I have been published in WI, Battlegames, MW and WSS (plus some others). In the 1990s when Duncan was at the helm of WI he published literally dozens of articles by me on a variety of subjects. But times change and as magazine profiles shift their requirements alter in terms of the content they want. I personally find that WI now cover a very narrow range of products from a very narrow range of producers. Rather like the sports magazine that only has articles on Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool.

WSS seem to me (and I am a mere columnist, not part of the editorial team) to take a broader look at the hobby as a whole. I would also extend that to Henry at MWBattlegames who, so far as I can see, has transformed the magazine during his short tenure. This more inclusive approach seems to me to be a better representation of the hobby as a whole, as opposed to the permanent obsession with the glitterati of the hobby. It also means that when writing my column I can take on contentious issues and not have to focus on what is considered "BRILLIANT".

I understand why some people don't like the themed issue thing in WSS, but the latest edition which arrived on my doorstep last week is a classic example of the inclusiveness I mention. The review of the ranges of figures available for Samurai games covered seventeen different figure ranges in five different scales. If you are in the market for a Samurai force this is really the first place you should be looking for photos, a brief review and comments on compatability. Do I want a Samurai army now? No. But I am a wargamer, so that probably means that one day I will!

To my mind we are lucky to have three hobby magazines on the shelves at WHSmith. The fact that two of them are what I consider to be exceptional quality is something to celebrate.

Richard Clarke

Crikey – 2 extra stifles.

Will I never learn – never post opinion on TMP

Not stifled by me, though, Marc!

It's actually become quite an interesting thread, rather proving my point of "just whose opinion should I listen to?" where there are evidently so many.

Anyway, I've nearly finished putting issue 364 together – in my own sweet way, of course… ;) Contents will be published next week.

@ ubercommando: "Folksy". I like that. Reminds me of MWAN… I can see us sitting on the porch, chewing tobacco and drinking moonshine, reading articles that begin "Well, I remember, back in the day…"

Oh, by the way Volleyfire, Hammer's Slammers has not "crept back in". I asked John T to write a single article about his ruleset because I had to confess complete ignorance about their origins, as I suspect many others would too, despite them being featured in the old MW for years. Personally, I was fascinated by the author's Vietnam heritage. That's it. He's on to something completely different this month.

Henry

Dear Lardies, I must say I love your products and I am a proud owner of IABSM and I try to big that game up to fellow WW2 gamers. But fellow readers of WSS and myself have commented over a few pints about the columns and certain recurrent themes: All parodies are meant in jest.

As for folksy, I'm at a stage in my wargaming where I'm between being a young tyro into his fads and pretty miniatures and being the crusty old veteran who wishes he can get those old Jacklex figures of yore.

Bottom line; I think we're in the good times with the hobby. Yes, I can go into WH Smith's and get three wargaming magazines off the shelves, all doing their own thing. I'm not going to like everything in them but I think MWwBG has now raised the bar whilst having some old school touches to it. It possibly has the most variety of the 3 main titles.

Only a small point but – I have every issue of Battlegames, I now have a subscription to Miniature Wargames which prior to the merger I did not. Obviously most of the time I think what Henry does is worth my time and money.

However, I feel as free to comment on individual issues of these magazines as I do on anything else I've ever bought in this hobby. An open discussion of what people may, or may not like, is no more disrespectful than an honest but negative review or disparaging comment column in a wargaming magazine. It used to be done via letter columns (if the editor was bold enough) – now it's done here.

That's my opinion anyway.